The Party of No? Or the Party of No Sacrifices?

Going into the 2010 elections, Republicans are offering themselves as the common sense party, the party that will tighten purse strings, cut taxes, balance budgets, and shrink the size of government.

They’re responding to the fact that voters are sincerely nervous about the amount of spending (and borrowing) by Democrats in Washington.

But in interviews yesterday with three top GOP contenders — vying for House seats in the NY-20th and NY23rd districts — it was hard to find much in the way of specifics or straight talk.

Chris Gibson, who is vying to unseat Glens Falls Democrat Scott Murphy in the 20th district, fares the best on this score.

He talks bluntly about shrinking our homeland security apparatus down to its pre-9/11 size.  And as a retired Army colonel, he also embraces the idea of cost reductions for the US military.

But when it comes to the big-ticket items — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — Gibson suggested that a revitalized economy would offset the need for serious cuts.

“You’re asking about a future view of America that is pessimistic.  I have an optimistic view of America.  Let’s get the private sector going again…I refuse to believe in America that we need to turn the thermostat down and put a sweater on.  That is not the kind of vision that I have for America.”

During last night’s NY-23 debate in Saranac Lake, meanwhile, Doug Hoffman and Matt Doheny offered even fewer specifics about sacrifices that might be needed.

Asked to name a single major cut to a government program or service in the North Country, they declined and instead suggested that voters should trust their broad philosophical promises.

They also suggested that the real leadership on budget cutting would come from other lawmakers, and from the GOP’s top brass.

“When I get down to congress, I will not be alone,” Hoffman said.  “I will have help in making decisions like that.  I will not be the only one making those decisions.”

“One person can’t do it,” Doheny agreed.  “But there’s a lot of us who are going to be new down in Washington and I can assure you, we’ll go through that budget line by line.”

The problem with these promises is that we’ve been here before and we got burned.

In 1994, Republicans took control of the House under an identical banner of of fiscal discipline.  They quickly ramped up earmark spending to the highest levels ever seen.

In 2000, voters gave the GOP complete control of the Federal government, including the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court.

For six years — at a time when the economy was booming — Republicans still managed to run up the largest deficits ever seen.

They did so by cutting taxes while also boosting the size and growth of government to unprecedented levels.

When then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill raised alarms about the level of debt, Vice President Dick Cheney told him, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.  We won the midterms.  This is our due.”

Once again going into this year’s midterm election, Republicans are giving plenty of details about the tax cuts they want to shower on voters.

But they’re offering almost no specifics about significant cuts they will make.

So here’s the question.

If they lack the courage of their convictions out on the campaign trail, what will they do when it comes time to make the hard choices in Washington?

Tags:

14 Comments on “The Party of No? Or the Party of No Sacrifices?”

Leave a Comment
  1. Wally says:

    Gibson is correct. We need to start shrinking the bloated size of our government, because we cannot afford it as a nation. Gibson has also said he favors big reductions in the Departments of Education and Energy, both of which have grown enormously the past 25 years under both parties.

    We need a reasonable sized government that does not try to run all things in our economy and nation. And we need to start shrinking it down now so we donb’t have to borrow money from oversaeas to pay for our excesses today.

  2. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Good question; I think I know the answer.

  3. Bret4207 says:

    This is why it’s so hard for me to get excited about Doheny or Hoffman. Neither has guts enough to lay out specifics. If they believe in the conservative values they claim then have the intestinal fortitude to make it plain whats required. This is why we need to get the politics out of politics.

  4. oa says:

    Brian, You’ve been completely bamboozled by Alan Simpson on Social Security. You’re better than this.
    And I think you’re missing the problem. It’s not debt, at least not public debt. It’s unemployment and falling production. Look at this economist’s post, and the graphs. There is plenty of work to be done, but we’re not using our factory capacity or our workers. And neither party wants to do anything about it:
    http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/09/07/rome-is-burning/

    Here’s the money quote from the piece:

    “This is a failure of our basic institutions of production. The job of the market is to bring together willing buyers with willing sellers in order to produce value. This is not happening and as a result literally trillions of dollars in value are not being produced.

    Let me say that again because I think it fails to sink in – literally trillions of dollars in value are not being produced. Not misallocated. Not spent on programs you don’t approve of or distributed in tax cuts you don’t like. Trillions of dollars in value are not produced at all. Gone from the world entirely. Never to be had, by anyone, anywhere, at any time. Pure unadulterated loss.”

  5. Brian Mann says:

    OA –

    The problem with this formulation is that we were running massive, systemic deficits even at a time when the economy was booming and we were approaching what most economists view as full employment.

    So even when productivity was maximized and the demand for social service programs and other government aid was at its lowest ebb, we still were funding about a quarter of our Federal government on borrowed money.

    Well-managed debt is an important tool for running a modern, complex society. But debt levels this high are a different kettle of fish.

    –Brian, NCPR

  6. Bret4207 says:

    OA, why? Why were the trillions not made? Were there actually willing buyers? Can we compete on the world market at our costs? Can we compete when there are other countries subsidizing their industries to extents we can’t imagine?

  7. Pete Klein says:

    I will start believing anyone in government (or wanting to get into elected office) when they they say they want to lower taxes by working to eliminate all forms of government subsidies and grants. And I do mean all. This would include all forms of monetary and equipment support to foreign governments, including Israel.
    No money, not even loans, to foreign governments, state and local governments, businesses, farmers, educators, scientists, etc., etc., etc.

  8. JDM says:

    One thing that must change is this. We, the people, must stop sending politicians to Washington to bring home our piece of the pie.

    Republicans and Democrats are both guilty. But we, the people have expected them to go and get us some goodies.

    This time around, it seems there are some politicians who are saying, in the likeness of Chris Christie, “No. We are not here to go get your goodies. Don’t elect me if that is what you want”.

    We’ll see. I’ll bet some of them get elected. Will they deliver? Will we still make demands on them to bring us some goodies?

  9. Pete Klein says:

    Yes, JDM, we are addicted to grants and subsidies. It’s a legal way to buy votes.

  10. Mervel says:

    As long as we are allowed something for nothing we will take it and that is what we have been getting. But it is a slow denigration of our future as a nation. Hillary Clinton spoke of the impacts of this sort of spending today.

  11. Bret4207 says:

    JDM and Pete- hear, hear! And it’s one of the hardest things in the world not to do…”Hey taxpayer, here’s some FREE MONEY! Just remember me at election time…”. Even at the more local levels when we have family accepting “help” from HUD or HEAP or whatever the defense is “but you paid so much in taxes for years , they’re just getting some of it back”. It doesn’t wash with me.

    Merv- Didn’t you say you’d vote for whoever could bring the pork back? Can’t have it both ways.

  12. PNElba says:

    Do away with all grants. There goes 90% of basic medical research in the USA.

  13. Mervel says:

    So if a NC congressman stands on principle and lets them move Fort Drum to North Carolina because he does not want to be part of government pork how does that help or change anything except screwing us over?

    But yeah I would certainly vote for who will be most effective in bringing government dollars to the NC. The US is going to spend a certain amount regardless of what goes or does not go to our little district I say we need it as much or more than anyone and the person that is most effective in delivering it gets my vote.

  14. Bret4207 says:

    Fine Mervel, I understand that, but you can’t have it both ways. If you are against pork, subsidies, etc. then you can’t reasonably turn around and be for it too.

    Yeah, I know that grants and subsidies fund a lot of stuff. That’s why I say we change things over the long term, not overnight. The medical research industry for example will find ways to fund research on it’s own given time and the need for research.

Leave a Reply